On 8/6/2020 at 7:26 PM, jako13 said:

In all seriousness - I get the protect the head/player thing- what was Nibbler actually meant to do? - he is tackling a bloke who is resisting being tackled and off balance trying to kick while being turned 360+, he can't just let go mid tackle - would be crucified by all and sundry

 

I don't get that he really had any other choice but to complete the tackle

I think protect the head was aboned with the Lynch decision wasn't it?

They just discussed it on mmm. Said melbourne should definitely appeal and if that was the bont or martin no way would they have got 4 weeks. Sid he should have got 1 or 2 at most 

Don't appeal it it's a waste of money. It's only Nibbler he probably would have been dropped for the next 4 games anyway.

What extra does he get if he loses an appeal?   If his career is likely to be sunk with 4 games missed in this truncated season, maybe it's worth a punt to try to get back earlier.   Especially since there seems to be some support in the media that the 4 weeks is too harsh and out of line with previous decisions.  (I leave aside the question of whoud he be selected in any case.)

Edited August 8, 20204 yr by sue

Seems odd that the AFL would protect the stars from being held to account for breaking the rules, but then NOT protect the stars from being negated on field by opponents breaking the rules.

Where is the win here?

D-U-O-A.  My acronym of the week.  Starts with 'Disappeared Up...'.

 

 

Why is he called Nibbler?  He is at best depth, I have not seen him take his chance every time he has been given the opportunity.  He might be fit but that’s about it.  Has been on the list a long time and cannot see any improvement.

Remember ANB pleaded guilty and argued that the impact should be graded as high not severe.

Even his advocate argued for a 2 match suspension acknowledging 3 at the most. AFL rep argued for 3-4

Best an appeal would deliver is 3 matches

Not worth it... move on and file it as another chapter in the MFCSS saga

The tribunal act like cowards. Pick on the weak but suck up to the strong.

Edited August 8, 20204 yr by america de cali

 

43 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Reassuring to know the former players agree with us.

Loved the tweet from Tim Gossage that Paley's stage is the same penalty as Tiger's Lynch, punching a bloke to the back of the head, $500 fine. Know what I would rather my opponent do.

Not surprised theyve made an example out of our player rather than Burgoyne. 

And did viney cop concussion from the murphy hit? Now he's out and the offender only gets 1 week. 

I’m actually very disappointed the club hasn’t made a statement making it clear we aren’t happy with it. You can argue “oh it’s only ANB, he wasn’t going to be playing much anyway” but at the end of the day he’s a Melbourne player and he puts on the red and blue to represent the club. 

At the very least I would’ve hoped for the club releasing through the grapevine that they feel it is unfair treatment and clear favouritism. 

On 8/8/2020 at 7:45 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

Its pretty simple really? The Burgoyne tackles did no not cause concussion and were able to play out the game. Anb tackled knocked the kid out.

That's what the AFL are trying to stamp out is the ones that cause concussions. If Burgoyne tackled had caused this then he would have easily received his 3 or so weeks.

 

You have to penalise the action not the consequence. If a tackle is dangerous/sling it has the capacity to knock someone out regardless of whether it actually does or not

23 hours ago, Redleg said:

You want another example of the "STAR" avoiding a penalty in the AFL?

Clarko attacked the umpiring a few weeks ago and what did the AFL do, they changed the interpretation of the rules.

Then a couple of weeks later he actually accused the umpires of cheating, saying his opponents had an extra man.

What did the AFL do, they told all Coaches to not criticize the umpiring.

Where was the fine for Clarko?

Can you imagine a lesser Coach saying that, he would be fined immediately. He didn't even get a please explain letter.

Big clubs and stars in the AFL have always been favoured and that unfortunately is a corruption of the fairness of the competition.

No ifs or buts, the AFL is all about money and they see anything interfering with that as an impediment to be removed.

No reasonable person with any knowledge of the AFL, could argue that Selwood, Ablett, Martin, Pendlebury, Kennedy, Fyfe, Heppell, Mitchell etc would have got 4 weeks, or even have been sent to the Tribunal in the first place.

PS. I think all DL's would agree we fall into the lesser club category. Can anyone find a 4 week penalty for a sling tackle,  given to anyone other than Melbourne players Trengove and ANB? In ANB's case with the shortened season it is like a 6 week penalty. That is nearly as much as the Gaff/Brayshaw broken jaw, by punch, penalty.

PPS. Can anyone find a player penalized like Beamer Moloney was in 2005, for a few games, when he actually never made contact with the opposing star player Jimmy Bartel's head. Bartel thought he might and fell over avoiding him. Eddie would have exploded and ranted on air for days. 

"

Melbourne Football Club will not appeal the two-match suspension given to in-form midfielder Brent Moloney.

Moloney received the penalty for rough conduct after he appeared to make contact with a former teammate Jimmy Bartel during last Friday night's match against Geelong.

Bartel hit his head on the ground as he stumbled. The Geelong midfielder was carried from the ground on a stretcher, suffering concussion.

Demons coach Neale Daniher voiced his disappointment with the tribunal's decision before his club's training session at the MCG this morning.

"They (the tribunal) termed it medium-contact (to Bartel) ... the evidence we put showed there was no contact to the head at all. It was just a slight brush to the shoulder," Daniher said.

"It's on public record that we thought that James (Bartel) sustained his injury when he hit his head on the ground, so from that point of view we were disappointed that the tribunal didn't see it our way."

Advertisement

 

We play into the "small club" mindset by not challenging these decisions. As above we didn't even challenge the Moloney one!

9 hours ago, Pates said:

I’m actually very disappointed the club hasn’t made a statement making it clear we aren’t happy with it. You can argue “oh it’s only ANB, he wasn’t going to be playing much anyway” but at the end of the day he’s a Melbourne player and he puts on the red and blue to represent the club. 

At the very least I would’ve hoped for the club releasing through the grapevine that they feel it is unfair treatment and clear favouritism. 

In his pre-game press conf it was pretty clear Goodwin and the club aren't happy.  Said it was up to commentators to say whether a 'name' player would have got the same penalty, that it was only the 2nd time a 4 week penalty had been imposed for a tackle (not sure the time frame he referred to) and that we have to cop it.

Given the chat around 'sling' tackles there isn't much more the club could say, at least not publicly.

Edited August 8, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

I saw the Grimes? Tackle last night and laughed.

Nibbles get 4 weeks (rightly so) but Burgoyne and grimes disnt mean it and get slaps on the wrist.

Afl and integrity hahaha what a joke 

Edited August 9, 20204 yr by Unleash Hell

Watching again on 'First Crack'  (I know I want to vomit at Tom but no 360)

Club has missed a step in it's handling of this, the guilty plea was a mistake, 4 weeks is 'Dog Act' territory and it was clearly not.

1. Hamill was clearly still trying to kick when he could have turned his body to protect himself, he was careless to his own safety, this to me means ANB could argue for a reduction. 

2. Hamill trying to kick is what upset his balance and caused his head to go to ground, i.e. ANB was not trying to put him head first into the turf, this makes it more of an accident.

3. Bloody oath the AFL will roll over for a name player doing the same thing.

Lastly all the peeps potting ANB because he is not a gun player on our list; saying don't bother/doesn't matter, I seriously wonder if you know what team means? Looking after the team, makes a team strong, anything else is fake and BS. Get behind our man.

In an almost identical incident against the Crows in almost the exact spot on the ground as the ANB tackle, Luke Dahlhaus for the Cats was cited and received 1 week.

Absolute joke.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/490295/match-review-cat-suspended-for-dangerous-tackle-lion-cops-ban

Luke Dahlhaus just got a week for the identical tackle that ANB got 4 weeks for, with one exception, the victim wasn’t concussed. That is pathetic, in that penalty is now decided not by intent, or legality of action, but on any injury that occurs. 
Punch a bloke in the face, which is an illegal act, but if victim not injured, result is a fine or 1 week. 
This is ridiculous. 
AFL now more concerned with staging.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

In an almost identical incident against the Crows in almost the exact spot on the ground as the ANB tackle, Luke Dahlhaus for the Cats was cited and received 1 week.

Absolute joke.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/490295/match-review-cat-suspended-for-dangerous-tackle-lion-cops-ban

Agree. I saw it and thought he’d have a decent holiday. It’s a joke. 

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Luke Dahlhaus just got a week for the identical tackle that ANB got 4 weeks for, with one exception, the victim wasn’t concussed. That is pathetic, in that penalty is now decided not by intent, or legality of action, but on any injury that occurs. 
Punch a bloke in the face, which is an illegal act, but if victim not injured, result is a fine or 1 week. 
This is ridiculous. 
AFL now more concerned with staging.

Totally agree. It’s crazy how injury impacts the suspension. Everyone is made differently and some people are more susceptible to injury. If you slammed 100 people into the turf with the same amount of force each time I can guarantee not everyone will react in the same way. 

1 hour ago, Nelo said:

Totally agree. It’s crazy how injury impacts the suspension. Everyone is made differently and some people are more susceptible to injury. If you slammed 100 people into the turf with the same amount of force each time I can guarantee not everyone will react in the same way. 

On the other hand. People get injured in these tackles because they have their heads smashed into the ground. It's obviously a differently executed tackle if someone does it and avoids smashing the head into the ground. Is that just sheer luck or technique? I don't know.  IMO it should be erdadicated from the game. I don't remember seeing wing sling tackles like these that the older players carry on saying they were all ok back in the day. 

7 minutes ago, It's Time said:

On the other hand. People get injured in these tackles because they have their heads smashed into the ground. It's obviously a differently executed tackle if someone does it and avoids smashing the head into the ground. Is that just sheer luck or technique? I don't know.  IMO it should be erdadicated from the game. I don't remember seeing wing sling tackles like these that the older players carry on saying they were all ok back in the day. 

I agree the tackle should be outlawed. Why don’t they just make a clear ruling on the tackle independent of the injury it causes. 

On 8/8/2020 at 11:27 AM, cantstandyasam said:

A joke that Burgoyne got let off so lightly. The AFL are hipocrites.

And you seem to have just discovered that well know fact. 
Where have you been hiding?

of course the AFL are hypocrites

It'll upset a few people, but Nibbler is exactly the type we need to add to our forward mix. Can't wait to get him back from serving Shaun Burgoyne's suspension.

 

I wonder who will be picked to serve the rest of Dalhouse's suspension? Could be Nibbler again!